Role of the Supreme Court of Canada

[FiveParadox]

I very much disagree. The Sikh oath to never go unarmed is a component of the orthodox version of its religion, and is therefore protected under s. 2(a) of the Charter. Why do you refuse to place your blame where it belongs, on the law itself, since you disagree with it? Why put the blame on the Supreme Court, when they have done what they were supposed to do when the case was brought before the bench? The proper legal decision was obvious from kilometres away.

 

[CDNBear]

I myself am not only the high priest, but the messiah of the Order of the Holy Hi Power. It is our sincere belief that if one goes an hour without being in possession of a fully loaded operational Browning (praised be his name) P-35 Hi Power, they go straight to hell. (either in the traditional 9mm or the New Testament .40 caliber, as we are a tolerant, multicultural people) We swear an oath (EXACTLY as the sikhs do) never to go unarmed.....in our case without our pistols.

I fully intend to take this matter to the highest court in the land.

Being a middle-aged, male, Canadian-born white guy, How far do you think I'll get????

Not far at all.

The decision was correct—the kirpan is a religious symbol, required to be carried by orthodox Sikhs. The decision was in keeping with s. 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Obviously, in such cases where the Criminal Code of Canada is inconsistent with s. 2(a), the Code does not apply, and the Supreme Court ruled as such per Canadian law. Once again, it appears that your problem here is not with the Supreme Court, but with Canadian law—I’ve noticed that a lot of people have trouble separating the two. You should be lobbying the Government to invoke the notwithstanding clause, not lobbying against the Supreme Court for doing exactly what it was supposed to do.

Again, the you've miss it completely. Likely because your hero implemented the Charter in the first place.

What you are saying and the SC has set precedence on, is that religion trumps law.

How long before Sharia sits before the bench?

How many religions will we have to placate before we no long have the rule of law?

You know full well that there isn't a single pol alive with the balls to reverse a SC ruling, especially on a religious note. The cries of racism from the likes of you sunshine, would deafen us.

You talk of slippery slopes and eroding civil liberties. These are the real first steps to having that become a reality.

 

[CDNBear]

Baloney.

The kirpan is a weapon, carried by religious Sjkhs because, and ONLY because, they have taken an oath never to go unarmed.

Myself, I have no problem with that.....as soon as I am allowed my ancient constitutional right (unrecognized) to carry arms.......as in the Browning mentioned sarcastically below.

Logically, I have a much better case than a Sikh.

The Bill of Rights of 1689...part of Canadian Constitutional Law; "That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law...... "

Funny, I can't walk the streets with weapons suitable for my defense....and I don't see Sikhs mentioned above.........

Hear hear!!

The Supreme Court made it quite clear HOW the Kirpan must be worn...sealed and concealed.

In complete defiance of the CCoC.

If all you can do is come up with one isolated instance of a 13 year old doing what shouldnot be done with his kirpan, then I would say you don`t have a case against Baptised Sihks wearing the Kirpan.

Woa the skippy. Are you the one that believes no life should be taken? Shall we wait until one is taken with a kirpan, before your tune changes?

Your other aurgument concerning your children, is a non starter. At no time has an "Indian Tomahawk pipe" been "requirered" to be worn or carried at all times by Indian "tradition" or "relgion".

Ummm, maybe not required, but we carried our belongings with us most of the time, especially that item. Or shall I bring up the knife around our necks?

Your arguments are weak at best.

:roll:

I very much disagree. The Sikh oath to never go unarmed is a component of the orthodox version of its religion, and is therefore protected under s. 2(a) of the Charter. Why do you refuse to place your blame where it belongs, on the law itself, since you disagree with it?

Because the SC made the law ineffectual with its ruling. It should have considered Canada in its ruling. Not an antiquated religious item. Especially a weapon.

Why put the blame on the Supreme Court, when they have done what they were supposed to do when the case was brought before the bench? The proper legal decision was obvious from kilometres away.

:roll:

Not at all. They have the ability to look at the argument and make a ruling that serves the general populace, not one aspect of it. That is what they should be doing.

 

[TenPenny]

So what about the Supreme Court upholding the denial of a passport to a Canadian who was convicted of terrorism?

I don't see much mention of this on here, from the usual crowd of 'activist liberal judge' complainers.

 

[CDNBear]

So what about the Supreme Court upholding the denial of a passport to a Canadian who was convicted of terrorism?

I don't see much mention of this on here, from the usual crowd of 'activist liberal judge' complainers.

By all means, post a link.

 

[gerryh]

So what about the Supreme Court upholding the denial of a passport to a Canadian who was convicted of terrorism?

I don't see much mention of this on here, from the usual crowd of 'activist liberal judge' complainers.

Link

 

[FiveParadox]

In complete defiance of the CCoC.

Of course it was!

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms supercedes the Criminal Code! The Supreme Court cannot invalidate sections of the Constitution because they are inconsistent with criminal law—it’s always going to be the other way around, unless either (a) s. 2(a) of the Charter is amended by the Parliament of Canada to expressly exempt the Criminal Code, or (b) the Government invokes the notwithstanding clause.

Because the SC made the law ineffectual with its ruling.

Of course it did!

The law was inconsistent with s. 2(a) of the Charter! The Supreme Court had no choice!

It should have considered Canada in its ruling. Not an antiquated religious item. Especially a weapon.

It couldn’t!

Because the religious item, by s. 2(a) of the Charter, superceded the Criminal Code!

Not at all. They have the ability to look at the argument and make a ruling that serves the general populace, not one aspect of it. That is what they should be doing.

No, they don’t have the right to ignore the Charter to make a decision that the general populace agrees with. They absolutely must make decisions that are grounded in constitutional law—that is what the Supreme Court is there for.

 

[gerryh]

Again, the you've miss it completely. Likely because your hero implemented the Charter in the first place.

What you are saying and the SC has set precedence on, is that religion trumps law.

The SC upheld the existing laws as per the Charter of rights. It has NOT trumped any law.

How long before Sharia sits before the bench?

How many religions will we have to placate before we no long have the rule of law?

once again, fear mongering when a cognisant argument is not possible.

You know full well that there isn't a single pol alive with the balls to reverse a SC ruling, especially on a religious note. The cries of racism from the likes of you sunshine, would deafen us.

You talk of slippery slopes and eroding civil liberties. These are the real first steps to having that become a reality.

:roll: again..if the polititions are not intelligent enough to write laws that will not be challenged or are ambiguos, or are unwilling to add caveats to our existing charter of rights......that is NOT the SC's problem nor is it the SC's "job" to add those caveats.

Put the blame where it belongs, on those that write the laws and have the legal ability to change or modify the Charter.

 

[CDNBear]

Of course it was!

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms supercedes the Criminal Code! The Supreme Court cannot invalidate sections of the Constitution because they are inconsistent with criminal law—it’s always going to be the other way around, unless either (a) s. 2(a) of the Charter is amended by the Parliament of Canada to expressly exempt the Criminal Code, or (b) the Government invokes the notwithstanding clause.


Of course it did!

The law was inconsistent with s. 2(a) of the Charter! The Supreme Court had no choice!


It couldn’t!

Because the religious item, by s. 2(a) of the Charter, superceded the Criminal Code!


No, they don’t have the right to ignore the Charter to make a decision that the general populace agrees with. They absolutely must make decisions that are grounded in constitutional law—that is what the Supreme Court is there for.

BS...

From the first section of the Charter...

“reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”

The SC upheld the existing laws as per the Charter of rights. It has NOT trumped any law.

Yes it has, see my reply to 5P

once again, fear mongering when a cognisant argument is not possible.

:roll:...ya, like it hasn't already reared its ugly head.

:roll: again..if the polititions are not intelligent enough to write laws that will not be challenged or are ambiguos, or are unwilling to add caveats to our existing charter of rights......that is NOT the SC's problem nor is it the SC's "job" to add those caveats.

See reply to 5P

Put the blame where it belongs, on those that write the laws and have the legal ability to change or modify the Charter.

I have, the SC.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

The decision was correct—the kirpan is a religious symbol, required to be carried by orthodox Sikhs.

Indeed the decision was correct, FP. Freedom of religion, freedom to worship is a very strong clause in the Charter. It can only be trumped by safety concerns and by the freedom of speech clause. In my opinion, Supreme Court was quite right to let Sikh kids carry the kirpan (it did give the schools the authority to take proper safety precautions).

I think many people harken back to the good old days when the country was predominantly white, predominantly Christian, and no other religions needed to be considered (Except perhaps Judaism). Well, those days are long gone and are not about to return. Freedom of religion applies to all religions, not just Christianity.

You should be lobbying the Government to invoke the notwithstanding clause, not lobbying against the Supreme Court for doing exactly what it was supposed to do.

Really? I would like to see them try. No PM will touch the Notwithstanding Clause with a ten meter poll, Notwithstanding Clause is radioactive. By tradition, it has been established that it should only be used in an emergency. If a conservative PM tries to abuse it (and if anybody, it is a conservative PM who is likely to do that), there will be demands to get rid of it (and of course, the conservatives will pay heavy political price in Ontario and Quebec).

 

[gerryh]

The SC ruled that restricting the Kirpan was NOT a reasonable limit on a Baptised Sihks religious freedom.

As has been pointed out over and over again. The SC does NOT make law, it only interprets how that law 'effects" the Charter.

If a SC ruling or interpretation is not "acceptable", then those that are responsible for making and changing the laws of this Country can do something about it. The SC does NOT make the laws, it only interprets those that are ambiguous and upholds the Charter.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I very much disagree. The Sikh oath to never go unarmed is a component of the orthodox version of its religion, and is therefore protected under s. 2(a) of the Charter. Why do you refuse to place your blame where it belongs, on the law itself, since you disagree with it? Why put the blame on the Supreme Court, when they have done what they were supposed to do when the case was brought before the bench? The proper legal decision was obvious from kilometres away.

Indeed, FP. This demonstrates quite vividly why the Supreme Court justices must be appointed (and thus beholden to no one) rather than elected (and have to fight an election every five years).

If they had been elected, the kirpan decision very likely would have gone the other way. Damn the Charter, damn the constitution, the judges have to get reelected.

 

[CDNBear]

The SC ruled that restricting the Kirpan was NOT a reasonable limit on a Baptised Sihks religious freedom.

That's right, it's called 'interpretation'. They think they made the right ruling by their interpretation.

As has been pointed out over and over again. The SC does NOT make law, it only interprets how that law 'effects" the Charter.

And when a ruling supercedes a law, it in affect is rewriting law...:roll:

If a SC ruling or interpretation is not "acceptable", then those that are responsible for making and changing the laws of this Country can do something about it. The SC does NOT make the laws, it only interprets those that are ambiguous and upholds the Charter.

:roll:

 

[FiveParadox]

I don’t understand why you’d be rolling your eyes at those comments, as they’re completely true.

The Supreme Court of Canada’s function, per the Parliament of Canada that created it, is to make determinations as to whether provisions of laws brought before it are consistent with the Constitution Acts, 1867–1982. When laws are inconsistent with the constitution, those laws are of ‘no force or effect’ (that’s why, for example, abortions laws remain on the books—they were never repealed, but are of ‘no force or effect’ because they are inconsistent with the Charter). It is the duty of the Supreme Court to ensure that decisions uphold (1) the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, (2) other sections of the Constitution Acts, 1867–1982, and (3) written laws, in that order.

On the other hand, it is solely and exclusively the duty of the Honourable the Senate of Canada, and the House of Commons, to pass amendments to legislation or to the constitution to re-assert the wishes of the majority, should the Supreme Court make a decision that strikes down a more ‘popular’ law. The Supreme Court and the legislature perform complementary functions to one another, but let us be clear that the Supreme Court has never ‘created’ or ‘changed’ the law, only struck down laws that were inconsistent with the supreme law (the constitution), as is the Supreme Court’s primary function.

 

[CDNBear]

I don’t understand why you’d be rolling your eyes at those comments, as they’re completely true.

Because they're based on the exact problem with the SC. Their interpretation of legislation. Not how it affects the whole of the Nation, not how it affects traditional Canadian values.

So yes, it's true, its their interpretation, but that is where the fault lies. So in supporting only that premise, does not a formal point make.

Perhaps if he had actually stepped up and presented something that supported the interpretations.

The Supreme Court of Canada’s function, per the Parliament of Canada that created it, is to make determinations as to whether provisions of laws brought before it are consistent with the Constitution Acts, 1867–1982. When laws are inconsistent with the constitution, those laws are of ‘no force or effect’ (that’s why, for example, abortions laws remain on the books—they were never repealed, but are of ‘no force or effect’ because they are inconsistent with the Charter). It is the duty of the Supreme Court to ensure that decisions uphold (1) the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, (2) other sections of the Constitution Acts, 1867–1982, and (3) written laws, in that order.

:roll:

It is not the duty of the SC, that is also their interpretation. They interpreted the Charter as overturning the theory of parliamentary sovereignty.

By mandate as the top court, yes they are bound by the label "supreme law of the land" afforded the Charter, but they have a greater duty to Canada as a whole. This is where...

“reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”

Could have, should have been used.

The CCoC is a set of laws that govern the day to day aspects of Canadian society. It should not be trumped for religious reasons.

On the other hand, it is solely and exclusively the duty of the Honourable the Senate of Canada, and the House of Commons, to pass amendments to legislation or to the constitution to re-assert the wishes of the majority, should the Supreme Court make a decision that strikes down a more ‘popular’ law. The Supreme Court and the legislature perform complementary functions to one another, but let us be clear that the Supreme Court has never ‘created’ or ‘changed’ the law, only struck down laws that were inconsistent with the supreme law (the constitution), as is the Supreme Court’s primary function.

And you know full well, the spin and fall out will be the death of that person.

Ad's, spin doctors and charlettons seel the general public a bill of goods daily. It isn't hard to kill a pol, in the polls.

 

[TenPenny]

Link

Man convicted on terrorism charges loses passport battle - The Globe and Mail

 

[CDNBear]

Man convicted on terrorism charges loses passport battle - The Globe and Mail

Ummm, he's actually a convicted terrorist!

Your point was?

His rights weren't violated, the Gov't reserves the right to deny or remove a passport for any reason and no reason at all.

 

[FiveParadox]

Man convicted on terrorism charges loses passport battle - The Globe and Mail

What part of the Constitution Acts, 1867–1982 do you suggest was violated by the decision of the former Her Majesty’s Government for Canada? It should be noted that regulations do permit for the Minister of Foreign Affairs to deny a passport to an applicant due to concerns of national security of either Canada or another power, so this would have been completely appropriate on the part of the Government. Also, it should be further noted that the Supreme Court of Canada had no role in the denial of a passport, but rather refused to hear an appeal by the person convicted of terrorism. I would absolutely agree with the Government that someone convicted of terrorism through an acceptable justice system should have no entitlement to a Canadian passport, nor the guarantee of consular assistance either of Canada or Her Majesty’s other realms.

 

[TenPenny]

Ummm, he's actually a convicted terrorist!

Isn't that what I said?

 

[TenPenny]

What part of the Constitution Acts, 1867–1982 do you suggest was violated by the decision of the former Her Majesty’s Government for Canada?

Where did I say the constitution was violated?